Aside from being upset that Michigan State lost to Texas Tech in the Alamo Bowl, many Spartans fans were outraged at the job ESPN's broadcast team did during the game.

An inordinate amount of the discussion between Mike Patrick (play-by-play) and Bob Davie (analyst) was about the spat between Mike Leach, the Red Raiders' former head coach who had been fired days before the game, and Texas Tech wide receiver Adam James, son of ESPN analyst Craig James.

Unfortunately – or maybe fortunately – I was at The Red Ivy in Chicago, watching the game with friends. I could scarcely hear the commentary, so I'm not at liberty to opine.

ESPN has its own ombudsman, though, to whom viewers can submit complaints about the network. I never knew about this until Justin Rogers brought it to my attention, and I have to say it's a great feature.

Recently, Don Ohlmeyer responded to viewers' complaints about the network's coverage during the Alamo Bowl. The Leach story generated more responses than any other story this year, and the ombudsman let ESPN have it.

Jan. 21, ESPN.com: The announcers talked off-game over plays, replays, the referees' penalty calls and even each other. They had to interrupt what amounted to a sports radio talk show about Leach to pick up, in progress, several big plays, including a touchdown. They misidentified players and were late recognizing a fake field goal attempt. At one point, they went nine plays without verbalizing down and distance.

It's infuriating to sports fans when announcers ignore what's happening on the field. It subconsciously says to the viewers "What we're talking about is far more important and interesting that what you tuned in to watch." And more than that, it's unfair to broadcasters to put them in a position where they can't do their jobs well -- whether that's talking about a controversy or covering a football game.
...
On several occasions, Patrick pointed out that Adam James "enjoyed the support of his teammates." Davie told the audience, "You know I think the motivation for Texas Tech is simple: 'Show we can win a football game without Mike Leach.' He's been the face of this program. Let's face it, he's been the major reason for all this success. But for the coaches and players here tonight, they've got a great opportunity to show, 'Hey, it was us.' And we visited with them yesterday. They didn't have to say a word. You could sense that they're really excited about coming here tonight and getting this job done by themselves."
...
So, again, the key question: Was the telecast balanced? ESPN thinks it was -- and for me, that is the most troubling aspect of this whole affair. One ESPN decision-maker reviewed the telecast and, admitting his tally was subjective, told me the positive and negative comments about Leach were nearly equal. That may be accurate, at a high level. But the positives revolved around his X's and O's achievements as a coach. The negatives reflected on Leach's character as a man, which is where the balance was required.
...
Controversies lurk around every corner, and conflicts are troublesome for any company. Of course, they're particularly dangerous if a large part of your business relies on being perceived by an audience as factual, fair and credible.

As ESPN grows, so will the conflicts. All the policies in the world won't cover the potential scenarios. The company needs to develop a hypersensitivity to such developments. News decisions in these cases must not be resolved by asking "What's permissible for the employee?" but rather "What's fair to the audience?"

I'd highly recommend reading the entire piece. It's quite long – the longest response he's written thus far as ombudsman, according to Ohlmeyer – but he gives a great summary of the key figures, background information and analysis of some of the challenges facing live broadcast announcers.

(Even after critiquing the Alamo Bowl coverage, Ohlmeyer gives a great breakdown of Bobby Knight's performance as an ESPN college basketball analyst.)